Posted on 10/12/2014 4:21:23 AM PDT by iowamark
France's military history is littered with cautionary tales and glorious triumphs. And the secret differentiator between the two may be age.
The average age of Napoleon's generals was 41, and many of the brightest were even younger. Jean Lannes was named a general at 27, and a field marshal at 35. Andre Masséna was named a general at 35. Louis-Nicolas Davoust was named a general at 23 (really), and a field marshal at 34. Joachim Murat, Napoleon's legendary cavalry commander, was named a general at 29.
By contrast, in 1939, when France started what would be the most serious debacle in its history, the supreme commander of its armed forces was Maxime Gamelin, age 67. Before the end of the Battle of France, he was replaced by Maxime Weygand, 73. France's only World War II victories were won by a young general, who had previously written a prophetic book on blitzkrieg tactics, by the name of Charles de Gaulle.
This is a pattern so often repeated in military history that you can't help but ask, "When will they ever learn?" A military force wins a series of victories. After doing so, it becomes cocky, set in its ways, sure that its tactics will work forever. A hungrier force comes up with new and unexpected tactics. The older force cannot adapt. It is defeated. The phenomenon is so well known that "generals fighting the last war" has become a common expression.
We should always be wary of over-generalizations. Obviously, some of the world's most daring and innovative people are senior citizens, and some of its dullest and most conservative are in their 20s. But broadly speaking, these are exceptions that prove the rule. It seems hard to deny that there is indeed an inverse correlation between age and willingness to try new ideas, and between age and aggression, which are among the most critical features for military commanders.
And that brings us to America. Today, the U.S. military seems both as strong as ever and as weak as ever. As strong as ever because it has no great power rivals that can even hope to match its conventional strength; and because it has the most aircraft carriers, the best technology, and unattainable command of the skies. And yet, no one but a fool would claim that the U.S. military's recent war-making record is sterling. As Thomas E. Ricks has argued, a great many of the U.S.'s military failures in Iraq and Afghanistan are directly attributable to poor generalship.
The U.S. military is the most powerful fighting force in history. And warfare is changing faster than ever. The entire world depends on the U.S. military for security. Whatever the "next war" ends up being, we will all be sorry if U.S. generals are fighting the last war while it happens.
I don't know what the "next war" will be, so I can't make tactical recommendations. Instead, I can make a recommendation that will bias the U.S. military toward more inventiveness, more risk taking, more daring. Is it sure to work? Of course not. Will it make a true difference? Is it necessary? I believe so.
That recommendation is simple: The U.S. military should have a firm retirement age of 50 for officers.
This would be a sea change. It would mean the chairman of the joint chiefs would be in his mid-40s, instead of 62, as he is today. The career path would be compressed to an astonishing extent. It is not just generals who will be (much) younger; it will also be every type of superior officer.
There are, of course, laws in America that ban age discrimination. There are very good reasons for these statutes, and I don't propose changing them anywhere — except in the military's officer ranks.
Now, you might be concerned that my plan will promote people past their level of competence. Don't worry about that. Bureaucracies promote people to their level of incompetence; startups and adventurous militaries promote people past their level into competence, into jobs that they must grow into as they do them. A very common feature of military campaigns, especially successful ones, is officers being promoted very early due to high rank turnover, whether due to dismissals or death in action.
Plus, the U.S. military needs more accountability for senior officers. Some senior officers will not be ready for significant command by their mid-30s. Replace them!
Aren't there a lot of very valuable old commanders? Of course. As I said earlier, there are exceptions to every rule, and there are or should be a lot of exceptions to the current, never-justified, unwritten rule that says senior commanders should be in their 50s or 60s. The point of setting a general rule of this type is not to catch every single eventuality in its net. It is to find a way to shape incentives and culture and probabilities to improve the organization.
One effect of this new rule is that, given the shorter career span, and, therefore, a much more brutal "up or out" promotion system, younger ambitious officers who want to make general very fast will be more incentivized to try to stand out, to try new things and methods.
I realize, of course, how audacious my proposal is. Almost as audacious as Napoleon.
Don't forget Nimitz, Halsey, MacArthur, Eisenhower, de Gaulle, Roosevelt (the General), Bradley, Marshall,........and many others who were all over 50 when they won WWII.
Reagan 69; Obama 47.
The military does not need a high retention level - only in critical skills which they cover with bonuses.
Retention levels, promotion and time in service pay raises work together to field a balanced force.
If all a grunt can do is be a good infantry private then it’s not in the military’s best interest to retain him and be an Infantry Private over 20 years time in service.
You could sign up two privates for what you would be paying him.
That all works with the up or out and time in service for grade requirements.
Politicians shuld have the same, if not 4 year max
“And bringing back the draft is the left’s dream. Think of all those college protests being brough back.”
Much of what you say I agree with. However, it comes down to this for me; when the general population believes that they or their sons, nephews, etc, are to precious or above to serve, then this country is done, just a matter of time. An example, imo, O’Rielly has been ranting lately, like the idiot he is, for a mercenary force. I have lying believed that this would be the natural progression as a result of our all voluntary military. Should this occur, the illusion of the citizen solder will be gone - forever.
Good point, lets get rid of experience and maturity. And if as he says we have the best military in the world, which we do in spite of Obama trying to destroy it and turn it into a left wing social lab, why make the changes he suggests? We like to say in the Army, if its not broken, don’t try to fix it. Now, back to France sir, try your ideas there.
MacArthur never left his couch except to abandon his men to the death march. He was a fraud , and probably the best example of incompetence supporting this article. Despite having advance warning, he let his Philippine command be decimated by the Japs. Most of his soldiers hated him. Now, Patton..his men are still proud to say,” I was in General Patton’s Army.”
A big problem of the draft was it basically snagged the poor and uninformed (not saying all).
Those looking to get out of it had the college route, marriage w/kids and political connections.
The talk of bringing back the draft now includes some type of civilian service - jobs corps.
I see big problems with that route. I see that as another route of privilege by letting those with political connections get paid by government to do nothing for two years and think this is the way life should be.
The problem is the explosion in the size of the upper ranks of the officer corps, and their attendant staffs. There are now MORE flag rank officers in the military than their were in WW II, when the US had some 13 MILLION people in uniform.
I give you two words to refute the premise: Stormin’ Norman
And Custer was 36.
George Patton 11 Nov 1885 59 at ETO surrender
Dwight Eisenhower 14 Oct 1890 54 at ETO surrender
Ulysses Grant 27 Apr 1822 43 at Appomattox
George Custer 2 Dec 1839 37 at Little Bighorn
Robert E Lee 19 Jan 1807 58 at Appomattox
Arthur Wellesley 1 May 1769 46 at Waterloo
Charles Gordon 28 Jan 1833 51 at Khartoum, younger in China wars
Erwin Rommel 15 Nov 1891 52 at time of 'suicide'
I suspect that we have a fundamental division between tactics, strategy, and logistics.
“Patton was 60.
Pretty well kills that guy’s argument.”
That was my first thought. Also, MacArthur was 64 or 65 on VA Day.
Sometimes experience matters.
Fixed it...
That is a natural consequence of an explosion in the size of his army for war, especially with the fact that many of the older officers were royalists who were removed or even killed by the French Revolution. We could have a much younger officer corps if Obama had any who had voted Republican guillotined.
I wonder what the average age of a Russian general in WW II was after Stalin's pre-war purges.
Not only that, but non-military trying to tell the military anything.
“A big problem of the draft was it basically snagged the poor and uninformed (not saying all).”
If you will re-read my first post you will note that I specified there should be no exemptions other than for physical or mental problems. I am a vietnam vet and am well aware that the sons of those of power and privelage were able to avoid the draft. I went to college on the GI Bill after serving my three years in the Army (yes, I volunteered) and observed draft avoidance being elevated to a fine art.
In June 1863 Custer became the youngest General in the US Army; he was 23.
I don’t consider all the government health care crappy. I have it, Of course I don’t go to the VA, but I am covered and covered very well. Try to....you know.. know what you’re talking about.
How about mandate Congresscritters retire by 55? That includes senators.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.